28 U.S.C. § 1331

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over a Medicare claim despite administrative channeling only when that process would completely preclude judicial review.

Med-Cert Home Care, LLC v. Azar, II · filed 2023-09-21

First, Plaintiff has not invoked 28 U.S.C. § 1331 as a basis for subject-matter jurisdiction over its APA claim, or indeed over any of its claims. ... Accordingly, the Court concludes that, even if Plaintiff were allowed to amend its pleadings, the Plaintiff’s APA claim would not satisfy the preclusion of review exception.

Section 1331’s grant of federal-question jurisdiction is subject to statutes by which Congress precludes judicial review.

Ebu v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services · filed 2024-03-29

As USCIS explains, however, § 1331 is “subject . . . to preclusion of review statutes created or retained by Congress.”

Section 1331 does not confer civil federal-question jurisdiction over a motion to compel production filed in a closed criminal case; the claim must be brought in a civil suit.

United States v. Moreno · filed 2022-03-15

Our prior precedent prevents us from asserting civil jurisdiction over a motion filed in a closed criminal case. In Garcia-Herrera, the defendant similarly sought documents through a motion to compel in a since-closed criminal case. We held the district court lacked jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331—the civil federal-question jurisdiction statute—because we could “not see how this statute would give a district court jurisdiction over a motion to compel filed in a criminal case.” Garcia-Herrera, 894 F.3d at 1220. Because “[w]e are bound by the precedent of prior panels absent en banc reconsideration or a superseding contrary decision by the Supreme Court,” we cannot reach a different result here.

A federal issue raised only as an affirmative defense does not establish federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331.

Nichols v. Global Experience Specialists, Inc. · filed 2022-04-28

As discussed above, any affirmative defense relating to proportionate responsibility does not confer federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction based on a defendant’s affirmative defenses when the plaintiff’s claim does not arise under federal law.

Mortgage Lenders Investment Trading Corporation v. Vereen · filed 2024-09-25

But both the plain text of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and binding circuit precedent foreclose this argument, and the Court has no difficulty concluding that Vereen’s affirmative defenses cannot be the basis for federal-question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction when the federal issue arises in an affirmative defense rather than the original complaint.

Fairfield Bayside, LLC v. Thierry · filed 2024-12-03

Defendants also cannot assert federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 when the federal law issue is raised in an affirmative defense, not the original complaint.

Section 1331 does not support federal jurisdiction when the asserted constitutional claims are obviously without merit, totally implausible and insubstantial.

Deblock v. A v. McDowall Judge · filed 1992-12-15

The district court, liberally construing the allegations to accept jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, nevertheless found that the defendant was entitled to absolute immunity. ... Upon review, this court concludes that the district court properly held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. ... Therefore, it was within the court's discretion to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the claims were obviously without merit, totally implausible and insubstantial, in light of the alleged facts and circumstances. Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37 (1974).

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over claims whose factual allegations are so implausible and frivolous that they do not present a federal controversy.

(PS) Ruschhaupt v. Trump · filed 2022-02-02

Instead, the action should be dismissed without preyudice—and without leave to amend— for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on the utter implausibility of the allegations.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over a federal claim that fails on the merits unless its allegations are so frivolous as to be wholly implausible.

Lusk v. Lamin · filed 2022-03-29

As discussed below, Plaintiff’s second amended complaint ultimately fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. But the complaint’s allegations are not so frivolous as to render the complaint totally implausible. Therefore, the Court declines to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over fanciful complaints that state no claim arising under federal law.

Weinschenk v. Hahn · filed 2022-04-29

Fanciful complaints like Weinschenk’s do not engage federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1331 because there are no claims arising under federal law.

Section 1331 jurisdiction ends when a voluntary amendment removes the only federal questions from the complaint.

Wullschleger v. Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. · filed 2023-07-31

We must decide whether amending a complaint to eliminate the only federal questions destroys subject-matter jurisdiction. The answer is yes, so the case must return to state court.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction after a valid post-removal amended complaint eliminates all federal claims.

Total Quality Logistics, LLC v. AJC Group, LLC · filed 2025-06-02

Because TQL’s Verified Amended Complaint no longer contains—and indeed, expressly disclaims on its face—any well-pleaded DTSA claim or any other claim based on federal law, (Doc. 9, PageID 259-60), this Court may no longer exercise federal question jurisdiction over this matter.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction when the operative amended complaint abandons all federal claims.

Felton v. Vroom Automotive, LLC · filed 2025-07-17

Clearly, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint contains no federal law claims. It explicitly states: “State Law Claims Only, Federal Claims Abandoned.” (Id. at 43). Moreover, Defendants do not dispute that the Amended Complaint does not present a federal claim to support federal question jurisdiction.

Federal-question jurisdiction is lost when a plaintiff amends a removed complaint to eliminate the federal claims that supplied its sole basis.

Sansonette v. Wadsworth · filed 2025-06-30

Because the amended complaint eliminated the FMLA claims, which was the sole basis for removal and the Court’s federal question jurisdiction, the Court is divested of subject matter jurisdiction over this action.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction when the complaint contains federal claims at the time of removal, even if a federal claim is later dismissed.

Devore v. City of Mesa · filed 1991-03-29

Defendants correctly assert that the existence of federal jurisdiction is determined from the complaint as it existed at the time of removal, not as subsequently amended. ... This Court had jurisdiction over this action at the time of removal based on the federal claims asserted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1331. Therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this lawsuit.

Section 1331 supports federal-question jurisdiction when the jurisdictional issue is intertwined with the merits of a constitutional claim, unless the claim is made solely to obtain jurisdiction or is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.

Sheffield v. Bush · filed 2022-05-24

Here, the court finds that the jurisdictional question is intertwined with the merits of the homeowners’ Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, and “substantive due process” claims. The homeowners contend that the Commissioner has violated their constitutional rights under color of state law in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. And they have invoked federal-question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... This case does not fall within either of those exceptions. Accordingly, the court denies the Commissioner’s request to dismiss the homeowners’ Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, and “substantive due process” claims under Rule 12(b)(1).

Section 1331 permits federal question jurisdiction when a genuine factual dispute over complete preemption is intertwined with the merits of the claim.

Mitchell v. Flores · filed 2024-06-20

Flores’s evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact with respect to those issues is sufficient to support this Court’s exercise of federal question jurisdiction over Mitchell’s lawsuit and the resolution of that factual dispute will be on the merits.

Section 1331 gives district courts original jurisdiction over federal-question cases, but does not authorize them to review another district court’s decision.

Campbell v. Bennett · filed 2022-05-26

District courts have orig- inal jurisdiction over civil actions arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. But they do not have appellate jurisdiction to review decisions of another district court.

Section 1331 does not provide federal question jurisdiction over a due process challenge to an H1-B visa denial when there is no constitutionally protected interest in the alien’s immigration status.

Blacher v. Ridge · filed 2006-02-23

Yet, there is no constitutionally protected interest in an alien’s immigration status to establish federal question jurisdiction in this case.

Section 1331 permits a district court to hear a programmatic statutory and constitutional challenge to an INS bond condition when the plaintiff does not seek review of an individual deportation or bond determination.

National Center for Immigrants Rights, Inc. v. Immigration and Naturalization Service · filed 1984-09-28

Thus, the district court properly has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to examine the merits of NCIR’s challenges and to enter declaratory and injunctive relief.

Section 1331 may support constitutional review of an immigration statute but provides no broader jurisdiction than the Immigration and Nationality Act’s own jurisdictional provision.

Martinez Ex Rel. Rodriguez-Sanchez v. Bell · filed 1979-05-03

Section 1331 provides no more extensive basis for jurisdiction than does section 279. This Court, therefore, may not reach questions presented in the instant complaint under § 1331 which it could not reach under § 279.

Section 1331 gives district courts broad jurisdiction over immigration-law claims except to the extent a specific statute vests exclusive review of final deportation orders in the courts of appeals.

Haitian Refugee Center v. Civiletti · filed 1980-07-02

Congress conferred broad jurisdiction on the district courts to hear cases arising under the immigration subchapter. 8 U.S.C. § 1329: ... U.S.C. § 1331. Neither the language nor the intent of Section 1105a supports the conclusion that this court has been deprived of its jurisdiction to hear causes of action 1-3.

Section 1331 gives a district court jurisdiction to review the denial of an immigration adjustment of status.

Galvez v. Howerton · filed 1980-08-20

The Court has jurisdiction to review this denial of an adjustment of status under 8 U.S.C. § 1329 and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction to review an immigration official’s parole decision when that decision arises under federal immigration law and no specific statute grants or bars review.

Soroa-Gonzales v. Civiletti · filed 1981-06-04

The Magistrate concluded this provision and 8 U.S.C. § 1329 “are virtually identical as to federal questions arising under Subchapter II of the immigration laws: any action reviewable under [8 U.S.C. § 1329] is also reviewable under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.” ... In light of the Court’s conclusion that jurisdiction exists under 8 U.S.C. § 1329, jurisdiction also exists under the federal question provision.

Section 1331 supports district-court habeas review of alien custody and detention, including matters preliminary or ancillary to a final immigration decision.

Diaz Ex Rel. Collard v. Haig · filed 1981-08-17

Controversies involving the custody and detention of aliens by officials of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) are reviewable by Federal District Courts through application for a writ of habeas corpus under 8 U.S.C. § 1329, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ... The fact that habeas corpus is sought for review of a matter ancillary or preliminary to a final determination by the INS of exclusion or deportation does not deprive the Court of subject matter jurisdiction.

Section 1331 permits a district court to address an alleged classwide program of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings, but not an individual alien’s constitutional relabeling of an interlocutory procedural ruling.

Haitian Refugee Center v. Smith · filed 1982-05-24

Notwithstanding any surface appeal to the government’s argument, we are convinced that insofar as the first three counts set forth matters alleged to be part of a pattern and practice by immigration officials to violate the constitutional rights of a class of aliens they constitute wrongs which are independently cognizable in the district court under its federal question jurisdiction. ... Casting as a constitutional violation an interlocutory procedural ruling by an immigration judge will not confer jurisdiction on the district court.

Section 1331 permits federal courts to hear due-process challenges to immigration-agency action even when those challenges touch on foreign relations, although it does not authorize courts to determine foreign policy.

Orantes-Hernandez v. Smith · filed 1982-06-02

The Court clearly has the power to determine whether the INS is complying with the laws and Constitution of the United States and whether it is depriving Salvadorans of their rights to due process, as alleged by the plaintiffs in this case. ... The Court agrees with the defendants that it has no constitutional authority to determine the nation’s foreign policy, but, by the same token, the Court cannot constitutionally avoid its duty to hear due process challenges to governmental action simply because those challenges touch on foreign relations. ... The Court therefore concludes that it has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 8 U.S.C. § 1329.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over a claim that immigration officials engaged in a pattern, program, or scheme to violate detainees’ constitutional rights.

Louis v. Nelson · filed 1982-06-18

The Court also believes that federal question jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Plaintiffs have claimed INS engaged in a “pattern, program or scheme ... to violate [their] constitutional rights...”

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over a case requiring interpretation of a federal benefits-eligibility statute even when the resulting interpretation requires individual administrative adjudications.

Esparza v. Valdez · filed 1985-07-05

While the plaintiffs’ claim has presented a case or a controversy requiring interpretation of federal law under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and presents a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the denial by the state officials of benefits to which the plaintiffs claim entitlement under federal law, the court’s more limited construction of the statute requires individual consideration of the status of each applicant.

Section 1331 provides general federal-question jurisdiction over constitutional and federal statutory challenges to INS marriage-petition procedures.

Ali v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · filed 1986-06-13

The Alis correctly assert that this Court has jurisdiction to hear their claims under its general federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (1982), and its specific jurisdiction over claims arising under the INA, 8 U.S.C. § 1329.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over immigration claims challenging asylum procedures when the claims are collateral to, and do not directly attack, final deportation orders.

Salehi v. District Director, Immigration & Naturalization Service · filed 1986-07-16

We conclude that petitioners' claims based on the Act, the Protocol, and the Constitution are not direct attacks on their deportation orders. Accordingly, exclusive jurisdiction is not in this court, and the claims were therefore properly brought in the district court. ... That court has jurisdiction under section 279 of the Act, and 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 (1982) (federal question), ... as well as under its habeas corpus authority, see supra p. 1289.

Section 1331 permits district-court review of classwide statutory and constitutional challenges to an INS regulation when the plaintiffs do not seek review of individual immigration determinations.

Doe v. Nelson · filed 1988-12-28

This case is a statutory and constitutional challenge to the validity of the regulation itself, rather than a challenge to the individual determinations of the INS. ... Plaintiffs base jurisdiction on 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 8 U.S.C. § 1329. ... The court has jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ constitutional claim. ... Indeed, § 1255a(f)(2) is inapplicable to this claim, since as demonstrated above, that provision is intended only to bar review of individual determinations, something not sought in this case.

Section 1331 permits a district court to hear a statutory or constitutional challenge to the operation of the IRCA amnesty program when the suit does not seek review of an individual adjustment-of-status determination.

In Re Richard Thornburgh · filed 1989-03-03

It does not appear to contemplate any review of “a determination respecting an application for adjustment of status.” Ample authority supports the proposition that the district court has federal question jurisdiction to entertain a statutory or constitutional challenge to the manner in which the entire IRCA amnesty program is being operated. 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) (federal question jurisdiction); 8 U.S.C. § 1329 (jurisdiction over “all causes ... arising under any of the provisions of this subchapter,” which includes 8 U.S.C. § 1255a).

Section 1331 and the Administrative Procedure Act cannot bypass IRCA's exclusive administrative and court-of-appeals review scheme for legalization decisions and related regulatory challenges.

Ayuda, Inc. v. Thornburgh · filed 1989-07-18

We hold the district court lacked jurisdiction and therefore vacate the order. ... It is crystal clear — at least with regard to IRCA — that Congress closed that door.

Section 1331 and the immigration jurisdiction statute provide district-court jurisdiction over cases arising under federal immigration law.

International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union v. Meese · filed 1989-08-29

This case arises under the federal immigration laws. Consequently, the district court had subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1331 (federal question) and 8 U.S.C. section 1329 (district court has original jurisdiction over all cases arising under the immigration laws).

A statute limiting habeas review of delays in individual deportation determinations does not foreclose a Section 1331 challenge to the validity of an INS regulation.

Flores ex rel. Galvez-Maldonado v. Meese · filed 1990-06-20

Because this provision “deals only with complaints about delays in determining deportability in individual cases,” it does not foreclose a challenge to an INS regulation brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 rather than in habeas corpus proceedings.

Section 1331 permits a challenge to an INS regulation when the immigration habeas provision addresses only delays in individual deportability determinations.

Flores v. Meese · filed 1990-09-07

Because this provision "deals only with complaints about delays in determining deportability in individual cases," it does not foreclose a challenge to an INS regulation brought under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 rather than in habeas corpus proceedings.

Section 1331 permits a class-wide statutory or constitutional challenge to an immigration policy or practice without exhaustion of individual deportation-review procedures when the suit does not seek review of any individual deportation order.

Jose R. Montes Eduardo Castro Juan A. Monterrosa v. Richard L. Thornburgh Roy Daniel · filed 1990-11-16

we held plaintiffs need not exhaust the highly restricted habeas corpus procedure of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a) for reviewing Attorney General determinations concerning release on bond before they invoke district court jurisdiction over federal questions under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and over claims arising under the immigration statutes, 8 U.S.C. § 1329. ... Similarly, in this case appellees were not seeking to set aside individual deportation orders, but to obtain injunctive and declaratory relief to protect the rights of a class of asylum-seekers during deportation proceedings.

A statute limiting review of individual agency determinations does not impair Section 1331 jurisdiction over a collateral challenge to the agency’s general procedures and practices when Congress did not extend the special review provision to those claims.

McNary v. Haitian Refugee Center, Inc. · filed 1991-02-20

Given Congress’ choice of statutory language, we conclude that challenges to the procedures used by INS do not fall within the scope of § 210(e). Rather, we hold that § 210(e) applies only to review of denials of individual SAW applications. Because respondents’ action does not seek review on the merits of a denial of a particular application, the District Court’s general federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. §1331 to hear this action remains unimpaired by § 210(e).

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over an alien’s challenge to the BIA’s asylum-law interpretation after a final exclusion order when habeas review offers an effective and meaningful remedy.

Yang v. Reno · filed 1994-01-05

For the reasons articulated above, the court concludes that Congress intended to limit § 1331 jurisdiction to those cases in which its administrative scheme permits no effective or meaningful judicial review. In sum, the court finds that Petitioner's claim is not proper under § 1331. Therefore, his claims must be brought in a habeas proceeding.

Section 1331 does not permit a federal-question class challenge to an immigration agency’s legal standard when an alien subject to a final exclusion order can obtain meaningful review through habeas proceedings.

Yang You Yi v. Reno · filed 1994-01-05

Finally, the court is not persuaded that Congress intended to permit review outside the context of habeas proceedings, at least with respect to claims which could be adequately reviewed via habeas, even if another scheme might at times prove more speedy or efficient. For the reasons articulated above, the court concludes that Congress intended to limit § 1331 jurisdiction to those cases in which its administrative scheme permits no effective or meaningful judicial review.

Section 1331 does not override the specific habeas and exhaustion requirements governing judicial review of final exclusion orders when habeas provides meaningful review.

Yang You Yi v. Maugans · filed 1994-05-04

Nor would any of the other cases cited by Pan provide the court with authority to ignore the explicit requirements of §1105a in favor of a general grant of authority under § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a merits challenge to a final alien exclusion order when the specific immigration statute requires habeas review and that review is meaningful.

Yi v. Maugans · filed 1994-05-05

Nor would any of the other cases cited by Pan provide the court with authority to ignore the explicit requirements of Sec. 1105a in favor of a general grant of authority under Sec. 1331. ... Heeding Smith's admonition, we deny jurisdiction where, as here, the challenge by the aliens is neither procedural nor collateral to the merits and where application of the specific statutory provisions would not preclude meaningful judicial review.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction to review the Attorney General’s decision to stop adjudicating an exclusion-asylum proceeding under the IIRIRA.

Barapind v. Reno · filed 1999-06-04

AAADC abrogates general jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to review the attorney general’s decision to not pursue adjudication in the BIA exelusion-asylum proceeding.

Section 1331 confers jurisdiction only over cases arising under the Constitution and federal laws and does not independently supply jurisdiction to compel adjudication of an immigration application.

Labaneya v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Services · filed 2013-08-29

Similarly, the federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, does not provide an independent source for subject matter jurisdiction, as the statute only confers jurisdiction in cases arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States.

Section 1331 does not supply federal-question jurisdiction over admiralty cases.

Constructive Hands, Inc. v. Baker · filed 2006-08-08

Furthermore, it should be noted that 28 U.S.C. § 1331 does not provide this Court with a second source of jurisdiction, as admiralty cases do not arise under “federal question” jurisdiction.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction merely because a plaintiff asserts a maritime right arising under federal admiralty law.

Montgomery v. Harrold · filed 1979-05-25

There is no federal question admiralty jurisdiction.

General maritime claims cannot be heard under Section 1331 and instead depend on admiralty jurisdiction under Section 1333.

Powell v. Offshore Navigation, Inc., Etc. · filed 1981-05-11

... since Powell’s complaint stated only maritime claims, his case could not be heard under the general federal question jurisdiction of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not encompass maritime claims, and a state-law insurance or contract claim does not become a federal question merely because deciding it may require considering a federal shipping statute.

Superior Fish Co., Inc. v. Royal Globe Ins. Co. · filed 1981-09-09

However, its holding that maritime claims are not encompassed within § 1331, is equally applicable to the “arising under” clause of 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). ... The fact that resolution of these claims may involve some consideration of the Carmack Amendment does not make them federal questions.

Section 1331 can provide jurisdiction over a claim under the Limitation of Liability Act even when the waters involved are not presently navigable for admiralty jurisdiction.

Complaint of Three Buoys Houseboat Vacations USA · filed 1988-06-27

Although Lake of the Ozarks is not currently navigable for purposes of admiralty jurisdiction, the portion of the Osage River containing the lake was navigable in its natural and ordinary condition before it was obstructed by the Bagnell Dam to form Lake of the Ozarks. Therefore, notwithstanding the lack of admiralty jurisdiction, this Court has jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337, over this limitation proceeding which arises under an Act of Congress regulating commerce.

General maritime-law claims do not arise under federal law for Section 1331 purposes and must rely on admiralty or another jurisdictional basis.

Neal v. McGinnis, Inc. · filed 1989-07-25

A plaintiff does not have the option, however, of bringing a maritime claim in federal court based on the court’s federal question jurisdiction. ... held that claims under the general maritime law do not support federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Sections 1331 and 1337 do not confer jurisdiction over a Limitation of Liability Act proceeding arising from state tort law when admiralty jurisdiction is absent.

In the Matter of the Complaint of Three Buoys Houseboat Vacations U.S.A., Ltd., Etc. v. Morts · filed 1989-10-04

The next bases for subject matter jurisdiction asserted by Three Buoys are 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337. Both of these statutes require the cause of action over which jurisdiction is asserted to have “arisen under” federal law. The district court concluded that it had subject matter jurisdiction “pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337, over this limitation proceeding which arises under an Act of Congress regulating commerce.” 689 F.Supp. at 963. We disagree with this conclusion.

Admiralty cases fall within the district courts’ original admiralty jurisdiction but do not arise under federal law for purposes of Section 1331 federal-question jurisdiction.

McAllister Bros., Inc. v. Ocean Marine Indem. Co. · filed 1989-12-22

Admiralty cases fall within the district court’s original jurisdiction, but are not cases “arising under” the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States for purposes of original federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or 28 U.S.C. ... § 1441(b).

General maritime-law claims do not arise under federal law for Section 1331 purposes and therefore cannot be removed from state court on federal-question grounds without another jurisdictional basis such as diversity.

Coley v. Dragon Ltd. · filed 1990-04-30

Maritime actions arising under the general maritime law are not claims that arise under the “Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States” for purposes of invoking federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... Thus it is now clear that, except when there exists some basis for federal jurisdiction other than admiralty, (such as diversity jurisdiction), maritime litigation brought in state courts cannot be removed to federal courts.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over Death on the High Seas Act claims, which arise in admiralty.

Argandona v. Lloyd's Registry of Shipping · filed 1992-09-14

The Court finds that DOHSA claims do not arise under the “laws of the United States” for the purposes of sections 1331 and 1441(b).

Section 1331 does not supply jurisdiction over an in rem action to enforce a maritime lien; such an action must rest on admiralty jurisdiction.

Ventura Packers, Inc. v. F/V Jeanine Kathleen · filed 2002-09-11

... suit in rem based on federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. These arguments are meritless. If the district court had jurisdiction over this in rem action, it was in admiralty or not at all.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over admiralty claims merely because the governing maritime law is codified in the United States Code.

Cornelio v. Premier Pacific Seafoods, Inc. · filed 2003-08-21

The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ 46 U.S.C. § 10601 and § 10602 claims (and 46 U.S.C. § 11107 remedy) sound in admiralty. Such claims do not arise under the “laws of the United States” for purposes of removal based upon federal question jurisdiction and therefore are not removable pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b).

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over admiralty claims merely because they are federal in nature.

Roth v. Kiewit Offshore Services, Ltd. · filed 2008-12-04

To avoid rendering the saving to suitors clause in Section 1333(1) statutory surplusage, the Supreme Court held that admiralty claims do not fall within the scope of the original federal jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... The practical effect of these provisions is that the instant suit is removable only if complete diversity of citizenship exists. ... Hence, this suit lacks any ground on which it can be removed to federal court.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over admiralty claims.

Abdelnour v. Bassett Custom Boatworks, Inc. · filed 2009-04-27

Admiralty claims do not constitute federal questions within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over Death on the High Seas Act claims because they arise in admiralty.

Speranza v. Leonard · filed 2013-02-16

Even assuming that this case meets the requirements for the DOHSA to apply, DOHSA cases arise in admiralty and thus do not provide federal question jurisdiction such that removal is proper.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over claims arising solely in admiralty.

Doyle v. Tidewater Inc. · filed 2015-11-23

“Emphatically, claims in admiralty, whether designated in rem or in personam, do not fall within this category.”... Here, Plaintiff has not alleged a claim that would give rise to federal question jurisdiction under Section 1331.

Section 1331 does not treat general admiralty claims, including maintenance and cure claims, as federal questions.

Stemmle v. Interlake Steamship Co. · filed 2016-07-27

Accordingly, even where general admiralty claims are joined with Jones Act claims, the action is not removable under Section 1441(c) because general admiralty claims do not present federal questions under Section 1331.

Section 1331 does not treat in rem admiralty claims as federal questions.

Finney v. Board of Commissioners of the Port of New Orleans · filed 2021-12-14

Thus, under Fifth Circuit precedent, in rem admiralty claims are not federal questions under § 1331.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over an admiralty claim filed in state court under the saving to suitors clause.

Carmela Susino on her own behalf and on behalf of the Estate of Decedent, Luciano Susino and his beneficiaries v. 3M Com · filed 2023-07-14

Therefore, an independent basis for jurisdiction must exist for the cases to have been properly removed. ... Inasmuch as there is no diversity of citizenship or other basis for jurisdiction, removal is improper here.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction solely because a claim arises under admiralty law.

Knab, as the owner of a 2000, 38-foot boat for Exoneration from or Limitation of Liability · filed 2023-08-04

And as Judge Roemer also noted, the Supreme Court has held that admiralty claims do not themselves present a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, so admiralty claims cannot be removed on that basis.

Section 1331 does not treat admiralty claims alone as presenting a federal question.

Arnone v. Knab · filed 2023-08-04

And as Judge Roemer also noted, the Supreme Court has held that admiralty claims do not themselves present a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, so admiralty claims cannot be removed on that basis.

Admiralty issues alone do not create federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331 for removal of a state-court action.

STROM v. LOCKWOOD BOAT WORKS INC. · filed 2025-01-14

Defendant’s removal is based on the faulty premise that simply because an action invokes issues lying in admiralty, that action must be heard by a federal court.

Section 1331(a) does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over admiralty claims.

Marine Coatings of Alabama, Inc. v. United States · filed 1986-07-09(a)

The Supreme Court, however, has held that admiralty claims do not arise under the laws of the United States within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) and thus are not federal question cases. ... Consequently, Bell does not apply to suits in admiralty.

A Jones Act claim supplies Section 1331 jurisdiction independent of admiralty, so a plaintiff who demands a jury and makes no Rule 9(h) designation proceeds at law rather than under admiralty procedures.

Harrison v. Glendel Drilling Co. · filed 1988-02-22

Therefore, because plaintiff has filed this action and (1) has established that we have federal question jurisdiction pursuant to the Jones Act over this matter, (2) demanded trial by jury, which is not available in admiralty, and (3) not made a Rule 9(h) declaration identifying his claims as admiralty or maritime claims, we hold that plaintiffs action is properly triable as a suit at law and defendants are not entitled to invoke the benefits of Rule 14(c).

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction over Jones Act claims because whether a plaintiff has a cause of action under that federal statute is a question arising under federal law.

NEELY v. CLUB MED MANAGEMENT SERVICES · filed 1995-07-26

Section 1331 provides that the federal "district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 (1988). ... Plaintiff clearly meets that standard, for whether she could assert claims under the Jones Act and general maritime law is a question of federal law. The district court clearly had jurisdiction over plaintiff's Jones Act claims.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over Jones Act claims brought at law and accompanying general maritime claims when the plaintiff has not invoked admiralty jurisdiction.

Sanders v. Seal Fleet, Inc. · filed 1998-03-23

Because Sanders did not declare that he wished to invoke the court’s admiralty jurisdiction under Rule 9(h), the court considers the complaint to be brought under § 1331 for the Jones Act claims and for the general maritime claims.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over an in personam Jones Act claim brought at law.

Matthews v. Tidewater Crewing, Ltd · filed 2023-02-28

That claim does not invoke the exclusive admiralty jurisdiction of the federal courts and is properly considered as arising under the laws of the United States, namely the Jones Act. Indeed, Plaintiff could have initially brought an in personam Jones Act claim at law in federal court without invoking the Court’s admiralty jurisdiction and relying solely on § 1331 federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331(a) provides jurisdiction over a structural-defect claim against a Taft-Hartley pension plan regardless of whether the Taft-Hartley provision itself independently confers jurisdiction.

Dudo v. Schaffer · filed 1979-06-12(a)

“There is some uncertainty whether § 302(e) in fact confers jurisdiction, or merely authorizes a cause of action and withdraws a bar to jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1337. Under either view, jurisdiction is present here.” ... The same holds true in this case.

Section 1331 supports equitable remedies beyond an injunction for violations of the Taft-Hartley Act's pension-trust requirements, including an accounting and transfer of reserves.

Local 50, Bakery & Confectionery Workers Union v. Local 3, Bakery & Confectionery Workers Union · filed 1983-03-28

The issue thus is whether our power is limited to the enjoining of future § 302 violations, or whether — through application of general federal question jurisdiction — we may cure such violations by pressing into service the complete arsenal of equitable remedies. ... In light of the above discussion, we hold that this Court has the power to order an accounting and to transfer reserves from the Local 50 Fund to the Local 3 Fund.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over a claim that enforcement of an arbitration award would violate the First Amendment because the claimant’s rights depend on constitutional interpretation.

Jensen v. Farrell Lines, Inc. · filed 1979-07-13

Because the constitutional claim raises the question of whether enforcement of the arbitration award would be an impermissible infringement of plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights and therefore void as against public policy, subject matter jurisdiction over this claim is proper and a cause of action is stated.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a motion to confirm an arbitration award when the Federal Arbitration Act supplies no independent jurisdiction and the underlying dispute arises only under state contract law.

TM Marketing, Inc. v. Art & Antiques Associates, L.P. · filed 1992-09-14

Because the underlying dispute would not have been within federal question jurisdiction, and because the Arbitration Act alone cannot confer federal question jurisdiction, it follows that this Motion to confirm the Award is also outside the jurisdictional grant of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over a petition to vacate, modify, or correct an arbitration award based only on arbitrator misconduct rather than a substantial question of federal law.

Aubie BALTIN; Gwilda Baltin, Plaintiffs-Appellants. v. ALARON TRADING CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee · filed 1997-11-25

The Baltins moved to vacate, modify, or correct the arbitration award based only on alleged misdeeds of the arbitrators, not based on any violation of federal law. ... Under Franchise Tax Board, therefore, the district court did not have federal question jurisdiction over this case.

Section 1331 allows federal-question jurisdiction over petitions to confirm, vacate, or modify arbitration awards under FAA §§ 9–11 when the underlying controversy arises under federal law.

Ortiz-Espinosa v. BBVA Sec. of Puerto Rico, Inc. · filed 2017-01-23

There would seem to be only three possible tests for “arising under” jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ... This leaves only a third, alternative approach: that the look-through test adopted in Vaden for § 4 petitions applies to sections 9, 10, and 11 of the FAA.

Section 1331 permits federal-question jurisdiction over motions to confirm, vacate, or modify an arbitration award when the underlying arbitration dispute arises under federal law.

Quezada v. Bechtel OG & C Construction · filed 2020-01-14

We find the majority view persuasive and now join the First, Second, and Fourth Circuits in concluding that motions brought under sections 9, 10, and 11, each of which provides the ability to seek a different remedy in district court following an arbitration award, are subject to the look-through approach endorsed in Vaden.

Section 1331 does not provide federal-question jurisdiction over an application to vacate an arbitration award based solely on federal claims raised in the underlying arbitration.

Jennings v. Honda · filed 2025-09-05

To find a federal claim satisfying § 1331, Jennings asks the court to do precisely what Badgerow forbids: look through the application to locate jurisdiction in an action not actually before the court.

Section 1331 does not provide jurisdiction over a petition to vacate an arbitration award based solely on federal questions in the underlying dispute.

PITLOR v. TD AMERITRADE, INC., and CHARLES SCHWAB & CO., INC. · filed 2025-11-21

Because the Court cannot look to the underlying substantive controversy to assess jurisdiction (as Plaintiff apparently invites the Court to do), a basis for federal jurisdiction is lacking.

Former Section 1331(b) could not be used to assess costs against a prevailing plaintiff whose federal jurisdiction arose under specialized securities statutes rather than Section 1331(a).

Eunice v. Johnson, Cross-Appellants v. Mark Yerger, Cross-Appellee, J. D. Wilson and Kenneth H. Tribble, Defendants-Cros · filed 1980-02-29(b)

The district court’s reliance on § 1331(b) was misplaced. ... Where the jurisdiction of a federal district court is not based on § 1331(a), a district court may not invoke § 1331(b) as the basis upon which to assess the costs of litigation against the prevailing plaintiff.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction to enjoin enforcement of a state-court judgment merely because the judgment allegedly violated the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act.

Sarfaty v. Sarfaty · filed 1982-03-23

As noted earlier, (see note 4, supra), a claim that a judgment has been entered in violation of the Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act does not vest the federal courts with jurisdiction to enjoin the enforcement of that judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331(a) does not circumvent the Feres doctrine's jurisdictional bar against servicemembers' claims for injuries incident to military service, including intentional and constitutional tort claims.

Gaspard v. United States · filed 1982-07-16(a)

The doctrine enunciated by the Supreme Court in ... applies not only to negligence actions but also to suits alleging injury from intentional and constitutional torts, regardless of whether jurisdiction is alleged pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act or 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a).

Section 1331 does not give federal-question jurisdiction over a preemption-based declaratory claim against private parties that cannot enact or enforce state law; the claim must be brought against appropriate state officials.

Harding v. Summit Medical Center · filed 2001-03-23

In the case at bar, on the other hand, Harding is suing a medical provider and its legal representative — two private entities that lack the ability to enact or enforce state legislation. Such defendants, therefore, cannot interfere with Harding’s federal rights under the Supremacy Clause. In order for Harding to allege such a preemption claim properly, she must sue the appropriate California officials. This court’s reach is circumscribed by the boundaries of federal jurisdiction and Harding’s claims against defendants at bar do not reside within those limits.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over Supremacy Clause disputes, including asserted conflicts between state law and federal bankruptcy law.

Adams v. Prudential Securities, Inc. (In Re Foundation for New Era Philanthropy) · filed 1996-10-15

On the contrary, Supremacy Clause disputes fall within traditional federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, ... and so may be heard by non-bankruptcy fora outside the context of a bankruptcy case.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a substantial claim seeking to enjoin state utility regulation as preempted by federal law, without requiring the plaintiff to prove the preemption merits at the jurisdictional stage.

New Orleans Public Service, Inc. v. The City of New Orleans, the Council for the City of New Orleans, Sidney J. Barthele · filed 1986-02-14

Given the above, we find that absent application of the Johnson Act, NOP-SI’s statutorily-based preemption claim presents a substantial federal question over which the district court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. However, we do not decide, as NOPSI contends we must, whether NOPSI will prevail in its preemption claim. Achieving federal jurisdiction does not guarantee success on the merits of a claim.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a complaint seeking an injunction against state proceedings on federal-preemption grounds because the request for affirmative federal relief is not merely an anticipated defense.

Middle South Energy, Inc. v. Arkansas Public Service Commission · filed 1985-08-23

This concern is not implicated when the declaratory plaintiff has independent grounds for federal relief such as an injunction. ... Thus, the district court had subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to MSE's complaint, which on its face properly raises the federal question of whether the state proceeding should be enjoined on preemption ... grounds.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over claims that state welfare policies conflict with federal statutory entitlement programs.

Gilman v. Helms · filed 1985-04-18

As the parties address only the federal statute consistency issue, the Court need only proceed to a determination that jurisdiction is properly founded upon 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and does not address the issue of whether jurisdiction may also be premised properly upon 42 U.S.C. § 1343(3).

Section 1331 confers jurisdiction over a Supremacy Clause claim that state Medicaid provisions conflict with governing federal Medicaid statutes and regulations when the jurisdictional amount is satisfied.

Sandefur v. Cherry · filed 1982-08-18

Jurisdiction is statutorily conferred over at least one aspect of the dispute by 28 U.S.C. § 1331, since the complaint alleges a violation of the Supremacy Clause that certain provisions of the state Plan and Program Manual are alleged to be inconsistent and incompatible with governing provisions of the Social Security Act, in particular 42 U.S.C. § 1396d(e), supra, and plaintiffs allege that the amount in controversy exceeds $10,000.00.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over an affirmative suit to enjoin state officials from enforcing state law alleged to be preempted by federal law.

New Jersey State Chamber of Commerce v. Hughey · filed 1985-01-03

Thus I conclude that the instant cases arise under federal law and that jurisdiction lies in this court.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction to enjoin state officials from enforcing state regulation alleged to be preempted by federal law.

Anr Pipeline Company v. The Corporation Commission Of The State Of Oklahoma · filed 1988-11-09

Adopting the reasoning of Shaw, we hold that the district court had federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 to enjoin the Commission's enforcement of Sec. 240 and Rule 1-305 on the ground that this state law is pre-empted by the Natural Gas Act and the Natural Gas Policy Act.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction to enjoin state officials from enforcing state regulation alleged to be preempted by federal law.

ANR Pipeline Co. v. Corporation Commission · filed 1988-11-09

We therefore conclude the federal district court properly exercised jurisdiction over the Pipelines’ claims for injunction and declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over an affirmative declaratory judgment action seeking to enjoin state regulation as preempted by ERISA when the federal question appears on the face of the complaint.

Self-Insurance Institute of America, Inc. v. Korioth · filed 1993-06-11

Without entering into the intricacies of the "well-pleaded complaint rule" in the present action, suffice it to say that we are not confronted with a well-pleaded complaint problem because a federal declaratory judgment action affirmatively brought to determine whether a state law is preempted presents a valid basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over questions of tribal regulatory and adjudicatory authority raised in proceedings to enforce a tribal court order.

MacArthur v. San Juan County · filed 2007-07-18

The question of the regulatory and adjudicatory authority of the tribes— a question bound up in the decision to enforce a tribal court order— is a matter of federal law giving rise to subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a non-Indian’s challenge to a tribe’s authority to regulate the non-Indian’s conduct.

Arizona Public Service Company v. Aspaas · filed 1996-03-11

We view the issue, however, as to what extent the Navajo Nation can apply tribal law to regulate the activities of a non-Indian. ... We hold under the principles announced in National Farmers that the issue of the tribal authority to regulate a non-Indian issue is a federal question.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a non-Indian’s challenge to a tribe’s authority to regulate the non-Indian’s activities.

Arizona Public Service Co. v. Aspaas · filed 1995-11-07

In National Farmers, the Supreme Court held that a federal court is empowered to determine under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 whether a tribal court has exceeded the lawful limits of its jurisdiction. ... The issue in this case is whether the Navajo Nation retained its power to regulate the affairs of a non-Indian lessee, a question whose federal nature is the same in all material respects as the question National Farmers posed in regard to property owners.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over a non-Indian’s challenge to a tribe’s authority to regulate that non-Indian’s activities.

ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY v. ASPAAS · filed 1995-11-07

In National Farmers, the Supreme Court held that a federal court is empowered to determine under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331 whether a tribal court has exceeded the lawful limits of its jurisdiction. National Farmers, 471 U.S. at 853, 105 S.Ct. at 2452. The Court wrote: "The question whether an Indian tribe retains the power to compel a non-Indian property owner to submit to the civil jurisdiction of a tribal court is one that must be answered by reference to federal law and is a 'federal question' under Sec. 1331." Id. at 852, 105 S.Ct. at 2452. The issue in this case is whether the Navajo Nation retained its power to regulate the affairs of a non-Indian lessee, a question whose federal nature is the same in all material respects as the question National Farmers posed in regard to property owners.

Section 1331 supplies jurisdiction over a challenge to tribal-court civil jurisdiction when resolution requires analyzing the federal Constitution, statutes, treaties, and federal common law.

Swift Transportation, Inc. v. John · filed 1982-09-03

Defendants have moved to dismiss on the ground that this Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of this suit. The basic issue presented in this case is whether the Navajo Tribal Court has civil jurisdiction over non-Indians involved in an automobile accident on a U.S. Highway within the boundaries of the reservation. As outlined below, resolution of this issue requires an analysis of the Commerce Clause of the federal Constitution, statutes, treaties, and federal common law. As such, this action falls squarely within the general federal question jurisdiction conferred by 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 covers claims asking whether treaties and federal case law divest an Indian tribe of civil jurisdiction over non-Indians acting on reservation land.

Babbitt Ford, Inc. v. Navajo Indian Tribe · filed 1983-07-15

The district court premised subject matter jurisdiction upon the presence of a federal question pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1331. We agree with the district court's analysis. The question presented by these claims--the extent to which treaties and federal case law divest the Navajo tribe of the power to exercise civil jurisdiction over non-Indians conducting repossessions on reservation land--is a sufficient basis for Sec. 1331 jurisdiction.

Section 1331 authorizes a federal court to determine whether a tribal court has exceeded the lawful limits of its jurisdiction.

United States v. Yakima Tribal Court of the Yakima Indian Nation and David Ward, Tribal Judge · filed 1986-07-21

The District Court correctly concluded that a federal court may determine under § 1331 whether a tribal court has exceeded the lawful limits of its jurisdiction.

Section 1331 empowers federal courts to review whether a tribal court exceeded its civil jurisdiction, but the challenger must first exhaust available tribal-court remedies.

Superior Oil Company v. The United States of America · filed 1986-08-13

We hold that in cases encompassing the federal question whether a tribal court has exceeded its lawful limits of jurisdiction involving an exercise of civil subject-matter jurisdiction in a case such as that presented here, the federal district court is empowered to review a tribal court decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. However, the District Court erred in reaching the question whether the Navajo Tribe, its agencies and named officials are immune from the Superior suit by virtue of the doctrine of sovereign immunity before requiring Superior to first exhaust its claim in the tribal court.

Section 1331 provides jurisdiction over a dispute concerning whether federal law divests municipalities of authority over non-Indians operating an enterprise on Indian land.

Segundo v. City of Rancho Mirage, a Municipal Corporation, Jean Chormicle Kapp v. City of Cathedral City, Californi · filed 1987-04-02

Federal subject matter jurisdiction is present pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The issue, the extent to which federal law divests the cities of the power to exercise jurisdiction over non-Indians operating an enterprise on Indian land, is a sufficient basis for federal question jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction to determine whether a tribal court may exercise jurisdiction.

Sanders v. Robinson · filed 1988-11-30

The district court had jurisdiction over the question of tribal court jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer jurisdiction over a tribal contract dispute merely because an Indian tribe is a party or the contract involves a tribe.

Stock West, Inc. v. Confederated Tribes Of The Colville Reservation · filed 1989-04-20

In addition, federal question jurisdiction does not exist merely because an Indian tribe is a party or the case involves a contract with an Indian tribe.

Section 1331 supplies federal-question jurisdiction over a tribe’s effort to apply a village ordinance to nonmembers because the tribe must establish under federal law its authority to enact and enforce the ordinance against them.

Native Village of Tyonek v. Puckett · filed 1989-11-24

We held that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1362. ... We concluded that a federal question existed because “the heart of the controversy over the claim will be the Villages’s power, under federal law, to enact its ordinance and apply it to non-Indians.” ... Accordingly we REVERSE the dismissal of the Village’s claims against the Pucketts and Slawsons and REMAND those claims to district court.

Sections 1331 and 1362 provide jurisdiction over a tribe's suit to enforce its ordinance against a non-Indian because the tribe's sovereign authority over outsiders is governed by federal common law and inheres in the complaint.

Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant/appellant v. Frank Rose Clive "Sonny" Miller, Defendants-Co · filed 1990-01-10

We held that the tribe’s claim for enforcement of its ordinance against the non-Indian defendants arose under federal law, within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1362. ... In attempting to enforce its ordinance against Rose, a non-Indian, the Band necessarily invokes its sovereign power and relies on its disputed ability, under principles of federal common law, to apply that power against one outside of its community.

A complaint invoking Section 1331 and a federal statute may establish subject-matter jurisdiction even though comity requires dismissal so that available tribal-court remedies can be exhausted first.

Whitebird v. Kickapoo Housing Authority · filed 1990-11-20

In her complaint, plaintiff alleges that jurisdiction is proper based upon the general federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a. Plaintiff’s Complaint, at ¶ 4. Thus, on its face plaintiff's complaint alleges a basis for the court’s assertion of subject matter jurisdiction in this case. ... Thus, although the court finds both that plaintiff has adequately alleged the court’s subject matter jurisdiction to withstand defendants’ motion to dismiss on that ground, and that the court possesses jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case, the court finds that the principles of comity underlying the exhaustion requirement dictate that this court defer to tribal court remedies.

Section 1331 does not confer district court jurisdiction to review agency action when another court has exclusive jurisdiction over the challenge.

Brito v. Diamond · filed 1992-06-26

District Court jurisdiction may not be founded on 28 U.S.C. § 1331 when a different court is given exclusive jurisdiction over challenges to agency action.

Section 1331 does not provide federal jurisdiction to review a tribal court’s refusal to exercise jurisdiction when the jurisdictional issue arises solely under tribal law.

Sulcer v. Davis · filed 1993-02-18

However, after reviewing the proceedings before the tribal court, we conclude that review is not available under § 1331. The tribal court did not exceed the lawful limits of its civil subject matter jurisdiction but rather refused to exercise jurisdiction. Further, there is no indication that plaintiff alleged any claim under the ICRA in tribal court. Thus, we are not presented with the question whether the ICRA waives a tribe's sovereign immunity in tribal court. Resolution of the sovereign immunity question in the tribal court was limited to deciding whether the business committee members exceeded their authority under tribal law. The jurisdiction issue did not arise under federal law. Jurisdiction under § 1331 is not involved.

Section 1331 does not give a district court jurisdiction over a federal question when Congress has assigned exclusive jurisdiction over that subject matter to another court.

National Council for Industrial Defense, Inc. v. United States · filed 1993-05-25

Plaintiffs’ last two bases for jurisdiction are 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which grants district courts original jurisdiction over federal questions, and 28 U.S.C. § 1337, which grants district courts original jurisdiction over any civil action or proceeding arising under any Act of Congress regulating commerce. These general grants of jurisdiction are insufficient here because Congress has otherwise limited this court’s jurisdiction over the subject matter of plaintiffs’ claims.

Section 1331 permits a federal district court to decide whether a tribal court exceeded its jurisdiction, but the challenger must exhaust tribal remedies before obtaining federal relief.

AG Organic, Inc. v. John · filed 1995-07-12

In National Farmers Union, the Supreme Court made it clear that a federal district court may determine under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 whether a tribal court has exceeded the lawful limits of its jurisdiction. ... The party contesting the tribal court’s jurisdiction must exhaust the remedies available to it in the tribal court system, and until it has done so, it is premature for a federal court to consider granting any relief.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction to decide whether a tribal court had subject matter jurisdiction over non-Indians.

Wilson v. Marchington · filed 1995-11-08

Accordingly, the issue of whether the Blackfeet Tribal Court possessed subject matter jurisdiction over the activities of the non-Indian defendants is ripe for review before this court, in the exercise of its federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 does not supply a bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction over a claim under Bankruptcy Code § 525; that jurisdiction derives from § 1334.

Morrow v. Torrance Bank (In Re Morrow) · filed 1995-11-22

First, as discussed in more detail in fn. 12, infra, this Court derives its jurisdiction from § 1334, so the debtor's assertion of federal question jurisdiction is misplaced.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction to decide whether a tribal court has exceeded the lawful limits of its jurisdiction.

Bruce H. Lien Co. v. Three Affiliated Tribes · filed 1996-08-28

Despite the foregoing, we agree with Lien and the District Court that federal question jurisdiction exists in the District Court.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction to decide whether a tribal court has exceeded its lawful jurisdiction when the challenge rests on federal law.

Bruce H. Lien Company v. Three Affiliated Tribes · filed 1996-08-28

The existence of tribal court jurisdiction itself presents a federal question within the scope of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 confers federal-question jurisdiction over a claim challenging the scope of a tribal court’s jurisdiction.

Calumet Gaming Group-Kansas, Inc. v. Kickapoo Tribe of Kansas · filed 1997-10-09

Count I of Calumet’s complaint, by which it challenges the scope of the Tribal Court’s jurisdiction, raises a federal question under section 1331.

Section 1331 permits a federal court to decide whether an Indian tribe may compel a non-Indian to submit to tribal court jurisdiction because that issue presents a question of federal law.

Glacier County School District No. 50 v. Galbreath · filed 1997-12-08

The question of whether an Indian Tribe retains the authority to compel a non-Indian to submit to the jurisdiction of a tribal court presents a question of federal law, properly determined by the federal courts; the final arbiters of federal law.

Section 1331 authorizes a federal district court to determine whether a tribal court has exceeded its jurisdiction.

Enlow v. Moore · filed 1998-01-20

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the federal district court has the authority to determine whether a tribal court has exceeded its jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction to decide whether a tribal court exceeded its jurisdiction over non-Indians because federal common law governs that question.

County of Lewis v. Allen · filed 1998-04-23

Because federal common law controls, the question of tribal court jurisdiction is a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over a federal common law challenge to a tribal court’s jurisdiction over non-Indians.

County of Lewis v. Allen · filed 1998-07-24

Because federal common law controls, the question of tribal court jurisdiction is a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a complaint alleging that a tribal court exceeded its jurisdiction and violated federal constitutional and statutory rights.

County of Lewis v. Allen · filed 1998-12-11

On the face of its federal court complaint, the county alleges that the tribal court exceeded its jurisdiction and violated federal constitutional and statutory rights. Accordingly, we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction to decide whether a tribal court has exceeded the lawful limits of its jurisdiction.

TTEA v. Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo · filed 1999-07-19

Independent of the issue of the district court’s jurisdiction over TTEA’s attempt to secure a ruling on § 81, it has (and, on appeal, we have) subject matter jurisdiction to determine whether the tribal court was improperly exercising jurisdiction over the § ... 81 claim. In National Farmers Union Insurance Co. v. Crow Tribe of Indians, 471 U.S. 845, 852 (1985), the Supreme Court held that “whether an Indian tribe retains the power to compel a non-Indian property owner to submit to the civil jurisdiction of a tribal court is . . . a ‘federal question’ under § 1331.”

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction to decide whether a tribal court may exercise civil jurisdiction over a non-Indian.

Ford Motor Co. v. Todocheene Ex Rel. Todocheene · filed 2002-09-19

This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to § 1331.

Section 1331 gives district courts jurisdiction to decide a federal question about the limits of tribal court jurisdiction over non-Indian parties.

Tunica-Biloxi Indians of Louisiana v. Pecot · filed 2003-01-30

Here, defendants are non-Indian property owners and they dispute the limits of the tribal court’s jurisdiction. The Supreme Court clearly established that § 1331 provides district courts with the ability to determine a tribal court’s jurisdiction over non-Indian parties. ... Following National Farmers, we hold that this action is properly before this court under § 1331.

Section 1331 does not confer federal-question jurisdiction over private claims under 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3), which belong exclusively in state court.

Repay v. Flag Co., Inc. · filed 2004-07-02

In Connors v. Amax Coal Co., Inc., 858 F.2d 1226, 1229-30 (7th Cir.1988), the Seventh Circuit explained that 28 U.S.C. § 1331 applies only if: (1) an action “arises under” federal law; and (2) “section 1331 jurisdiction is not preempted by a more specific statutory provision conferring exclusive jurisdiction elsewhere.” ... Accordingly, this court agrees with the aforementioned courts of appeals, and with the three judges within this district, that the language, structure, purpose, and legislative history of 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3) all evince exclusive state court jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a non-Indian’s federal common law challenge to a tribal court’s jurisdiction.

Boozer v. Wilder · filed 2004-08-27

Because Boozer is non-Indian, § 1331 provides subject matter jurisdiction over his federal common law challenge to the tribal court's jurisdiction to determine his fitness to regain custody of K.W.B.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a tribe’s action to enjoin state court proceedings when the tribe’s claim that its court retains jurisdiction arises under federal law.

Oglala Sioux Tribe v. C & W ENTERPRISES, INC. · filed 2007-08-13

In summation, this court finds that the present action filed by OST to enjoin the state court from exercising jurisdiction arises under federal law. OST has therefore alleged jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction to examine a tribal court’s authority over non-Indian defendants when litigants seek enforcement of tribal court orders.

MacArthur v. San Juan County · filed 2008-07-02

By bringing a civil action in this court seeking enforcement of the Navajo district court’s interlocutory orders, plaintiffs Singer, Riggs and Dickson invoked the federal question jurisdiction of this court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, including the authority to examine the subject-matter jurisdiction of the Navajo district court over the named non-Indian defendants.

Section 1331 gives federal-question jurisdiction over a tribe’s claim that a tribal court retains jurisdiction over enforcement of a judgment because that claim requires reference to federal law.

Oglala Sioux Tribe v. C & W ENTERPRISES, INC. · filed 2009-04-07

This claim by the Tribe raises questions regarding the jurisdiction of the tribal court, and therefore requires reference to federal law. The Tribe’s request for injunctive relief arises under federal law and therefore confers federal question jurisdiction upon this court.

Section 1331 empowers federal courts to determine whether a tribal court has exceeded the lawful limits of its jurisdiction.

Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Poitra · filed 2011-03-02

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, this Court is empowered to determine whether a tribal court has exceeded the lawful limits of its jurisdiction.

Section 1331 gives federal district courts jurisdiction over a claim that federal law divests a tribal court of jurisdiction.

Colombe v. Rosebud Sioux Tribe · filed 2011-09-23

Colombe thus has filed an action “arising under” federal law within the meaning of § 1331.

Section 1331 does not permit a federal court to proceed with a challenge to tribal jurisdiction while required tribal-court remedies remain unexhausted.

Grand Canyon Skywalk Development, LLC v. Hualapai Indian Tribe · filed 2013-08-20

The Court cannot conclude, on this spare record, that GCSD has exhausted its remedies in Tribal Court. As a result, exhaustion is still required and amendment of GCSD’s complaint to add a federal question would not result in this Court exercising jurisdiction.

Section 1331 confers federal-question jurisdiction over an action challenging a tribal court’s jurisdiction over the parties because that question is governed by federal law.

Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. v. Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians · filed 2013-10-29

Plaintiffs’ suit seeks a determination as to whether the Tribal Court has jurisdiction over them—a federal question that must be answered by reference to federal law. ... This court finds as a first step, therefore, that it has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 confers federal-question jurisdiction over an independent Indian tribe's challenge to another tribe's court jurisdiction because the challenge raises an issue of federal common law.

Thlopthlocco Tribal Town v. Stidham · filed 2014-09-03

Thus, while National Farmers refers to “non-Indians,” the logic of the opinion applies to non-members of a tribe, including other independent Indian tribes. ... In short, the Tribal Town has sufficiently pleaded that it is a separate and independent Indian tribe beyond the reach of Muscogee court jurisdiction. That allegation presents an Article III federal question. The district court therefore erred in prematurely dismissing the Tribal Town’s claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ... Because the Tribal Town raises an issue of federal common law, we have subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 permits review of a purported tribal court’s jurisdiction over a nonmember despite a dispute over the court’s legitimacy, provided relief can be granted without deciding internal tribal governance issues.

Anderson v. Duran · filed 2014-10-02

Though mindful of the limits of federal court jurisdiction in matters of tribal sovereignty, the undeniable jurisdiction to consider if a tribal court has exceeded its authority over a nonmember cannot be undone simply because an underlying internecine battle implicates the authority of the purported tribal court. ... On that basis, Anderson has satisfied his burden to establish federal court jurisdiction over this matter so long as relief may be issued without implicating non-justiciable issues of tribal governance.

Section 1331 gives federal courts subject matter jurisdiction over a non-Indian’s challenge to tribal court jurisdiction once tribal remedies on that issue are exhausted.

Knighton v. Cedarville Rancheria of Northern Paiute Indians · filed 2017-02-15

Because Knigh-ton is non-Indian and it is undisputed that she has exhausted her tribal remedies with respect to the question of tribal jurisdiction over her, subject matter jurisdiction exists pursuant to § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over an action to recognize and enforce a tribal court judgment because that action necessarily raises federal questions about tribal authority.

Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation v. McKee · filed 2020-08-28

And as Defendants note, the complaint here seeks only recognition and enforcement of the Tribal Court’s judgment. See Dkt. No. 2 at 7-8. But that is enough to confer federal-question jurisdiction under Tenth Circuit precedent.

Section 1331 may provide jurisdiction to review a tribe’s authority over nonmembers, but it does not provide jurisdiction to revisit tribal membership decisions or custody proceedings involving tribal members.

Richman v. Native Village of Selawik · filed 2023-06-01

In sum, while federal question jurisdiction may exist to review a tribe’s jurisdiction over non-members, it does not exist to review a tribe’s civil jurisdiction over its own citizens, second-guess tribal membership decisions, or intervene in tribal child custody proceedings.

Section 1331 can support a federal question about a tribal court’s jurisdiction over a non-Indian party, but that party must first challenge jurisdiction in the tribal court.

CHR Solutions, Inc. v. Gila River Telecommunications, Inc. · filed 2024-01-30

In fact, a dispute over whether an Indian Tribe may compel a non-Indian party to submit to the civil jurisdiction of the tribal court can support federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Nat’l Farmers Union Ins. Co. v. Crow Tribe of Indians, 471 U.S. 845, 852 (1985). However, a tribal court’s jurisdiction should first be challenged in the tribal court, which Plaintiff has not done.

Section 1331 covers federal-law challenges to a tribal court’s jurisdiction, but the challenger must first exhaust tribal-court remedies.

National Farmers Union Insurance v. Crow Tribe of Indians · filed 1985-06-03

Our conclusions that § 1331 encompasses the federal question whether a tribal court has exceeded the lawful limits of its jurisdiction, and that exhaustion is required before such a claim may be entertained by a federal court, require that we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

Section 1331 provides federal-question jurisdiction over an action seeking recognition and enforcement of an Indian tribal court judgment.

Wilson v. Marchington · filed 1996-01-24

The court affirms its conclusion that an action prosecuted for the purpose of seeking recognition and enforcement of a judgment entered by an Indian tribal court presents a “federal question” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over federal common law challenges to a tribal court’s exercise of jurisdiction.

Brown on Behalf of Brown v. Rice · filed 1991-03-15

The court believes it has subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Petitioners essentially challenge the power and authority of the tribal court to restrict the actions of Crystal and Melanie. The Supreme Court has held that challenges to the exercise of jurisdiction by a tribal court present a question of federal common law which can be heard in a federal court under the general federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Section 1331 gives federal courts jurisdiction over a tribe's claim that federal law bars a state court from hearing a claim against Indians arising on a reservation.

UTE Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation v. Lawrence · filed 2018-01-31

The court found that it had jurisdiction pursuant to the Tenth Circuit's November 7, 2017 decision that "the Tribe's claim-that federal law precludes state-court jurisdiction over a claim against Indians arising on a reservation-presents a federal question that sustains federal jurisdiction" under §§ 1331 and 1362.

Section 1331 does not limit tribal court jurisdiction or displace the presumption that tribal courts have jurisdiction over activities on reservation lands.

Kaul v. Wahquahboshkuk · filed 1993-11-23

The courts have found no indication of congressional intent to limit tribal court jurisdiction in the diversity jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, or the federal question jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, Iowa Mutual, 480 U.S. at 17, 107 S.Ct. at 977, or the federal civil rights jurisdiction statute, Smith, 947 F.2d at 444. ... The court finds nothing in the different federal ■court jurisdictional statutes cited by the plaintiff to rebut the presumption of jurisdiction in tribal court.